On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 05:51:05PM -0400, Santiago Torres wrote: > Sorry for the delay with this, I got caught up with coursework. No problem. The project moves forward as contributor time permits. > This is my first stab at this, in the dumbest/simplest way imaginable. I > don't like that there is no code reuse (the run_gpg_verify function is > repeated here and in the plumbing command). I would appreciate pointers > on what would be the best way to avoid this. It looks to me like you could factor the repeated code into a common verify_tag(), but maybe I am missing something. > I also spent quite some time figuring out what you meant with > > > Do note the trickery with SIGPIPE in verify-tag, though. We probably > > need to do the same here (in fact, I wonder if that should be pushed > > down into the code that calls gpg). > I don't see any explicit SIGPIPE trickery here. Any pointers? There is a call to ignore SIGPIPE in builtin/verify-tag.c, line 100. Do we need to do be doing the same thing here? There's some discussion in the thread starting at: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/53878/focus=53904 The claim there is that we get SIGPIPE and die early if we feed gpg a tag which isn't signed. We _should_ be catching that case already via parse_signature(), though I wonder if it can be fooled (e.g., something that looks like a signature, but when gpg parses it, it turns out to be bogus). So we should probably continue ignoring SIGPIPE to be on the safe side. But I notice that we already handle SIGPIPE explicitly in sign_buffer() for similar reasons. What I was wondering earlier was whether we should teach other functions that call gpg (like verify_signed_buffer()) to ignore SIGPIPE, too, so that we can return a reasonable error value rather than just killing the whole program. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html